Sour Grapes Or Disruptive Politics

[HARDCORE]

11-28-2016

Why is it that to some - absolute power and disrupting any good that a newly-elected public official can do means far more than working together for the common good? Is not “Our Country” more important than any one political party or personal deification?

The President-elect (for better or worse) has not yet been sworn in, and already the attack is on! Call it sour grapes or even disruptive politics if you must, but I (and millions of others) thought that the whole idea behind any national election was to choose whom we felt to be the best man or woman to represent our nation’s needs and demands?

The fact is that “Donald Trump” has not even gotten into high gear yet, and already, the lean and hungry are jockeying for position in the next election! And of course it is only my opinion, but I would be willing to bet that those who are feeding all of this raw meat to their attack dogs, are sitting quietly and voraciously in the wings, ready to sink their fangs into any victories, while throwing everyone else to the dogs should their back-shooting backfire!

Once again, “The Election Is Over”, and no matter the outcome, we owe it to the person who was elected (and our nation as well), to give them a chance to show what they are made of! And anyone who seeks to disrupt anything that does a job right (regardless of political party affiliations), is, in my opinion, short-sighted or rigidly vested!

“The United States – First, Last, and Always!”

Hardcore

[Boats]

Example: Political Mudslinging, 1828
By: Thomas V. Dibacco
RE: http://www.wsj.com/articles/politica...828-1456874832

I've always wondered why there was so much mudslinging (or debacle) in politics. I found this on the web thought it would be interesting for others.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Political Mudslinging, 1828

Topic: The dogfight between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams make this year’s presidential campaign seem tame by comparison

If you think this presidential campaign season is notable for its mudslinging, it’s a good thing you weren’t around in 1828. That’s when American electioneering became modern in the race between incumbent President John Quincy Adams and challenger Andrew Jackson. Earlier campaigns had seen some rough stuff, but the electorate was small and communication poor.

Freewheeling newspapers, advanced printing techniques for circulars and posters and better transportation methods coincided with the rise of universal manhood suffrage. And the bad blood between Adams and Jackson went back to the election of 1824, when Adams whipped Jackson, who had the most popular votes, in a decision rendered by the House of Representatives.

The campaign between the two men started more than 14 months before the 1828 election; it was an era when candidates were selected by state conventions, not at national nominating conventions. And these two couldn’t have been more unalike—Adams, the Harvard-educated son of a president, and Jackson, the rugged son of the frontier who made his name in the military.

The attacks poured out from the candidates’ followers, surrogates and partisan newspapers. Jackson supporters accused Adams of having premarital relations with his wife and Jacksonian newspapers called him “The Pimp,” procuring young girls for Czar Alexander I when he was minister to Russia. Adams’s stewards contended that Jackson’s mother was “a common prostitute, brought to this country by the British soldiers.”

Adams, according to the Jacksonians, was a “lordly, purse-proud” aristocrat “feeding at the public trough.” He decorated the White House with fancy furniture, including a billiard table described as a front for a “gambling den.” The biggest critique was that the president had made a “corrupt bargain” with House Speaker Henry Clay to garner the necessary votes to become president in 1824, given that Clay was later appointed by Adams to be secretary of state.

Adams’s supporters lashed out at Jackson as a drunkard, duelist and cockfighter—and a man who couldn’t even spell “Europe” (he spelled it “Urope”). Jackson’s wife, Rachel, was called variously a “whore” and an “adulteress,” because she married Jackson before her divorce was final. This was an unspeakable offense, according to the Cincinnati Gazette, for “the highest office of this free and Christian land.” Another unkind cut: Rachel was fat.

Jackson won the election, but Rachel died of a heart attack in December 1828, before he took office. At her funeral, the campaign was clearly still fresh in Jackson’s mind. “In the presence of this dear saint,” he said, “I can and do forgive all my enemies. But those vile wretches who have slandered her must look to God for mercy.”

Mr. DiBacco is professor emeritus at American University in Washington, D.C.